Bipartisan Plan for Climate Geo-engineering Proposed
The New York Times is reporting that the D.C.-based Bipartiscan Policy Center is releasing a new study developed by an 18-member panel of researchers and policy wonks calling for research on ways to cool the planet down through geo-engineering, or as they prefer to call it, climate remediation. From the Times:
Members said they hoped that such extreme engineering techniques, which include scattering particles in the air to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or stationing orbiting mirrors in space to reflect sunlight, would never be needed. But in its report, to be released on Tuesday, the panel said it is time to begin researching and testing such ideas in case "the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required.
The Times further notes:
In fact, it is an idea that many environmental groups have rejected as misguided and potentially dangerous….
Some climate experts have been working on [the idea of climate engineering] for years, but they have largely kept their discussions to themselves, saying they feared giving the impression that there might be quick fixes for climate change.
Last week, various environmental activist groups urged the British government to stop a minor experiment in which British researchers plan to hoist a hose via helium ballons into the air and spew out water droplets. This experiment would be a very preliminary step toward evaluating a proposal to cool down the planet by injecting sulfur particles high into the stratosphere where they would reflect sunlight back into space. In case man-made global warming actually comes on faster than currently projected, no options for dealing with it should be off the table.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Domed cities. Giant, domed cities.
Don't forget the hand crystals and the age limit.
How long before the Nuclear Winter test?
For Christ's sake: What goddamn Manmade Global Warming?
Seriously, out of all the retarded crap that governments propose these days, this is some of the most retarded.
There is no need to try to "geo-engineer the climate". Not only is it likely to not work (and possibly even have all kinds of negative unintended consequences), it's just another massive waste of money that these stupid, out of touch governments can't even afford.
and possibly even guaranteed to have all kinds of negative unintended consequences
fixed
"...it's just another massive waste of money that these stupid, out of touch governments can't even afford."
It's not a massive waste of money for whatever politically-connected scam-artist gets dump-truck loads of cash to fund this hooey.
Which brings me to my Climat-o-Matic, which I guar-ahn-teeeeeeee will reverse global warming or your next eco-scam is 50% off!!!!
2010 was the hottest year on record. 19 countries set new all-time highs, including Finland, Colombia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Only 1 set an all-time low (Guinea). Pakistan set the new all-Asia record at 129 degrees Fahrenheit.
2011 set a new record low for Arctic sea ice volume (~4300 km cubed) and tied the 2007 extent.
All this is happening as the sun's output has lowered slightly.
Just how far back do your accurate records go for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Finland? Also, what was Antarctic sea ice extent? Why do you cherry pick weather and call it climate?
Anarctic sea ice already disappears every summer and has for a long time. Anarctica is now losing land ice, and that loss is accelerating. The western ice sheet is losing faster than the eastern, but both are now losing.
As for cherry-picking:
* 2010 was the hottest year on record.
* The 2000s were the hottest decade on record.
* 19 countries set new all-time highs in 2010; only 1 set a new all-time low.
* Summer 2011 was the second-hottest in US history. 2010 holds the record.
* Record droughts and floods are plaguing the world simultaneously.
* For my home city of Philadelphia, July was the hottest month ever. August had the most precipitation ever. And then a hurricane went through.
Cherry pick that.
Bullshit.
2010 was not the hottest year, althouh the summer was hot in the US. All time records are expected to be broken on occasion. If you have records of 100 countries for 100years, you should get one each yerar. Many of these countries do not have 100 years of data so records will fall more frequently. And the standard deviation is very large. So, completely meaningless.
Floods and droughts are quite normal.
It appears you need to learn about statistics and probabilities.
And no hurricane has hit the US mainland in about 4 years - you simply had a strong storm, the winds were below 75 mph.
Any more bs you wanna sling?
Some of these are just wrong (2010 was not the hottest year). More importantly, there is no clear cause and effect relationship. From 1940 to 1975 CO2 levels increased but temps decreased. And models only include what is easy to model - they are worthless for climate which is extraordinarily complex. AGW is almost indistinguishable from a cult.
"AGW is almost indistinguishable from a cult."
Almost?
Here's a neat article about Viking farms in Greenland.
"As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost..."
God forbid there's a fix.
Because if there is a quick fix, then we won't have the moral imperative to force people to live like we want them to.
Not to mention that quick fixes, if they exist, limit the opportunities of making money elsewhere (carbon credit exchanges), as well as limiting the opportunities for other ways of rent-seeking and graft.
Of course the solution will involve a fleet of high altitude airships just as the government approaches the end of the helium reserves.
Climate engineering is inevitable. Granted, eventually we will need an alternative to oil, but this takes the pressure of the environment itself off the economy for now, if it works. We need to learn more about artificial climates so we can terraform other planets in the future.
Its called a shake and bake colony, takes decades.
Anything to keep burning fossil fuels sold to us by Muslim fundamentalist dictatorships. For freedom, of course.
Most of the folks here are in favor of Canada's oil sands and fracking to supply our fossil fuel needs. It's the liberals who seem to want to stick with blood oil at all costs.
Sorry, keep burning oil, you keep burning Saudi oil. It's a global market, and they still have most of it.
I'm perfectly well aware that libertarians think that oil industry profits being maintained is the same thing as freedom.
First, when I read your typo in The New York Times is reporting that the D.C.-based Bipartiscan Policy Center .... I see Bipartiscam. Ain't that the truth.
Second, please pay less attention to that power-worshipping rag of record buttinski-ism.
Chemtrail conspiracies are suddenly sounding a lot more credible.
Some climate experts have been working on [the idea of climate engineering] for years, but they have largely kept their discussions to themselves, saying they feared giving the impression that there might be quick fixes for climate change.
Why, its almost like they don't want to do anything that might derail the Climate Narrative that we have to radically redistribute wealth and downsize our energy use and standard of living in order to Save the Planet.
Pollution and communism go back decades, it has been a useful attack against capitalists for a long time. There would be nothing more devastating to Al Gore and the eco communists than some billionaire who sponsors a project that sucks away CO2 to the "correct" levels.
If you have to posit a global conspiracy of scientists, you've already lost.
Massive engineering programs not only would take a lot of "redistribution" (i.e. taxpayer money), they are by nature untested and uncertain, and are only viable as a response to political fecklessness with respect to doing the responsible thing (not using up the rest of the planet's fossil fuels for the purpose of maximizing oil company profits for the next few years, but for no other purpose).
If you have to posit a global conspiracy of scientists, you've already lost.
Another parallel between AGW deniers and creation scientists.
The closer parallel is between the warmists and creationists. Both have a poorly structured hypothesis that lacks support in the record.
The more fantastic the claim, the more evidence needed - Carl Sagan (paraphrased). So the proof is left ot you and your co-religionist creatinoists.
We don't have to posit a global conspiracy of scientists.
Merely a confluence of perfectly ordinary groupthink, and politically-driven funding of scientists.
Care to deny that scientists aren't just as susceptible to groupthink as anyone else, or that funding of scientists isn't subject to politics?
Does this include all the AGW deniers, who are funded by right-wing think tanks and fossil fuel companies? If so, then "groupthink" is a wash, and we're back to the data.
And the data confirm the AGW model is correct: warmer land, warmer oceans, warmer lower atmosphere, cooler upper atmosphere, massive ice loss, nights warming faster than days, and the Arctic circle warming the fastest. If the Earth were warming from some other source, why is the AGW model being validated? Moreover, all this, while the sun's output is slightly down, the Earth's orbit hasn't wobbled significantly, and the cosmic ray cycle has been stable.
And the data confirm the AGW model is correct:
The data confirm we are in some kind of short-term warming phase, which may have already capped out.
The models that underlie the AGW theory have proven famously resistant to confirmation by data.
And, of course the kind of catastrophic AGW necessary to justify any kind of anti-CO2 program remains highly speculative, without a shred of support from any data.
"Massive engineering programs not only would take a lot of "redistribution"..."
But probably less than the current plans to break windows.
"...they are by nature untested and uncertain..."
The data from the models demonstrate that geo-engineering by removing catalytic converters will cool the earth just as well as the data demonstrates that the earth is warming. In other words, if you don't think removing catalytic converters will cool the earth, then don't argue the earth is warming.
Bingo. Which is precisely why libertarians shouldn't sneer at the idea of geoengineering.
Possible downsides >> possible upsides. Until that changes, keep your engineering off my climate.
Possible downsides >> possible upsides.
And we know this before a single experiment has been run?
Fucking science, how does it work?
Indeed. Libertarians shouldn't be too quick to jump on the "precautionary principle" bandwagon that the greens use to try to stop everything.
True, since when has government tried to intervene in a complex system without fully understanding it and created a problem worse that the one they were trying to solve?
If this is a step toward being able to get snow like we had in Colorado last year every year, then I'm all for it.
Yes except the allergies have been horrendous this year because of all the moisture we received. Ragweed in October is wrong.
Bizarre. It's like saying we shouldn't figure out how to clean raw sewage out of rivers because it will only encourage dumping raw sewage into rivers. Here's an idea: figure out how to get raw sewage out of rivers and stop people from dumping raw sewage into rivers.
True, and it perfectly illustrates how politics is distorting greenie thinking. They would never look at other problems the same way: "We shouldn't try to find a cure for AIDS/poverty/whatever because it would only encourage people to get AIDS/become poor/whatever."
Politics is distorting libertarian thinking, as well. Why else would libertarians be spouting creation science talking points?
AGW skepticism = Creation science?
Who knew?
Conspiracy of scientists is classic creation science talk.
But herd mentality and having objectivity distorted by money and peer approval happens all the time, even among scientists.
JP, you should acquaint yourself with the logical fallacy known as the "Excluded Middle."
Suppression of investiatgion and dissent is classic religionist talk.
No, what's bizarre is comparing carbon dioxide to raw sewage. This is the kind of analogy I would expect from a child in fourth or fifth grade.
But carbon dioxide is dirty! It kills polar bears! My teacher told me!!
Dose makes the poison, son.
Right, and you can over-dose on water, too, that evil pollutant... grow up.
Fucking analogies, how do they work?
For cogent discussions of all topics related to MGW and for our patriot from Jersey, global temperatures and arctic ice, I recommend http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Unfortunately, Reason is pretty much on the Global Warming is real and the Gubmint must save us all from it.
I don't get it myself, I guess because otherwise they look too Republican? That or Mr. Bailey will be the next Reasoner moving to the Huffington Post...
We have gotten many great comments from our customers and earn a good reputation in foreign makerts, more than 90% customers are satisfied with our products and service, till now our online members are beyond 80,000. As of right now, we currently serve Cheap UGG Boots customers from over 18 countries, and we are still growing. We really hope to expand our business through cooperation with individuals and companies from around the world.
Your essay is good, I like it very much. Here I would like to share with you some things :
Ugg Boots On Sale http://www.uggsukmall.com.
--- esile~
Your essay is good, I like it very much. Here I would like to share with you some things :
Ugg Boots On Sale http://www.uggsukmall.com. ----ercai